The Legalization of Marijuana in the United States

I expect that most of DG's described incidents would have been easily cited by the police if they'd involved an open container of alcohol rather than a blunt. Do Colorado's laws treat the two similarly? Do the police actually enforce those statutes?

I expect that most of DG's described incidents would have been easily cited by the police if they'd involved an open container of alcohol rather than a blunt. Do Colorado's laws treat the two similarly? Do the police actually enforce those statutes?

It's always situational. In some neighborhoods, you can sit on your front porch drinking a 40, so long as it's in a bag, even carry it around down the street. Others not so much. It depends on police perception of the individual & the neighborhood, always has. I think we'll see similar developments wrt cannabis.

I live in the very weed friendly Summit County in Colorado. My parent grew hydro weed in the 80's. 75% of my friends smoke. I trim when my bank account gets low. 200 a day for trimming is easy money. I quit smoking weed about 8 years ago.

Many people who come here who smoke think it's free for all. They think it's a god given right to smoke weedanywhere with impunity. They have not read Colorado's laws.

We are starting to see some backlash from families who come here and are having their little kids exposed to weed. We have complaints about people smoking weed walking down main street in Breckenridge. At community events all you smell is weed. People smoke out right next to little kids and tell the parents to fuck off if they don't like. It's even worse in the winter when the bro-brahs(wannabe pro snowboarder\skiers) get here. Weed is everywhere around here.

Just some thoughts.

In the not-too-distant future, marijuana use will be as normalized and open as that of alcohol. I'm afraid you're just going to have to get used to it. You can take heart in the fact that it isn't harmful in any way, and it's pretty damn hard to get even a light buzz from 2nd smoke in a non-enclosed environment.

Yep. It's just another teaching opportunity for parents, who are free to attach their own moral values to it all. They can offer that it's something that some grownups do, that it's OK for adults, or they can explain it in terms of sin, wickedness & perdition, or anything in between.

1) All decriminalized for personal use and research studies2) Do actual science on addictiveness and adverse effects of properly made and unadulterated product3) Use said science to regulate the drugs appropriately4) Even for the hardest drugs, treat addiction as a health issue, not a crime issue. Addicts should be able to get their drugs from a legal source.5) FOR GOD'S SAKE, LEGALIZE FUCKING SYRINGES ALREADY

US population is already gobbling tons of opiates and amphetamines legally obtained by prescription. Might as well remind you that the US consumes 80% of the world's opiate supply.

For adverse effects of properly made pure and unadulterated product, google prescription opiate overdose deaths over the last 10 years.

For god's sake, worldwide obesity figures show us that an average person can't be trusted with food and soda.

1) All decriminalized for personal use and research studies2) Do actual science on addictiveness and adverse effects of properly made and unadulterated product3) Use said science to regulate the drugs appropriately4) Even for the hardest drugs, treat addiction as a health issue, not a crime issue. Addicts should be able to get their drugs from a legal source.5) FOR GOD'S SAKE, LEGALIZE FUCKING SYRINGES ALREADY

US population is already gobbling tons of opiates and amphetamines legally obtained by prescription. Might as well remind you that the US consumes 80% of the world's opiate supply.

For adverse effects of properly made pure and unadulterated product, google prescription opiate overdose deaths over the last 10 years.

For god's sake, worldwide obesity figures show us that an average person can't be trusted with food and soda.

I have to agree with Pont about syringes. Shared syringes are an unnecessary disease vector. Banning the sale of syringes is a callous exercise in creating suffering sinners so as to preach against sin. It's a public health abomination.

He's probably right about heroin by prescription, as well. The vast majority of heroin overdoses occur because of highly variable strength in the highly adulterated street product.

I'll try to keep this as non-smart-assish as possible, but it has been known for a while now that there are only two proven negative health effects to smoking marijuana: stunted physical and mental development among youths, and increased symptoms of psychosis among psychotics. If you aren't still growing/developing, and you aren't psychotic, you have nothing to worry about.

And yes, it has been found to treat or prevent a number of cancers. This is known.

If you disagree, feel free to prove it.

Really? Because some studies on rats and mice showed a decrease in tumors?

Contrary to that, there is supporting evidence that shows an increase in cancer tumor development in users of both tobacco and pot, as opposed to just tobacco.

The evidence is still very much out as to whether or not cannabinoids are in fact a cancer treatment or a cancer cause.

I would love to be corrected if I am mistaken. I do not believe I am. Please provide evidence for your claim that pot smoke increases cancer development.

Just to be clear, you are arguing against common knowledge. As far as I know (and about this subject I know much more than most), there has not been one (as in zero, nada, zilch, NOTHING) study linking pot smoke to ANY kind of cancer.

He's probably right about heroin by prescription, as well. The vast majority of heroin overdoses occur because of highly variable strength in the highly adulterated street product.

Majority of opiate overdoses and deaths happen from prescription opiates, not from heroin.

This is properly made, pure and unadulterated product.

Also, it's hard to say what heroin overdoses happen from, frequently they happen when a person relapses after a period of sobriety after they lost some of their tolerance and by force of habit shoot up their old dose. Also, frequently multiple drugs are involved.

He's probably right about heroin by prescription, as well. The vast majority of heroin overdoses occur because of highly variable strength in the highly adulterated street product.

Majority of opiate overdoses and deaths happen from prescription opiates, not from heroin.

This is properly made, pure and unadulterated product.

Also, it's hard to say what heroin overdoses happen from, frequently they happen when a person relapses after a period of sobriety after they lost some of their tolerance and by force of habit shoot up their old dose. Also, frequently multiple drugs are involved.

I've been around, a lot, years ago. I understand all forms of freaks, drunks & junkies, also their substances of choice at an intimate level. I've consequently lost a lot of friends over the years, mostly to heroin. I realize that it's less adulterated today, but it's a difficult product to cut properly, and to maintain uniformity of cut when handled. It wants to separate, leading to fairly high variability even among portions taken from the same larger bag. The difference between 10% and 20% can prove lethal. And that can easily be from 2 bags bought from the same source at the same time. It doesn't help that a fair amount of what passes for heroin is really fentanyl, much stronger and much more heavily cut by people who don't necessarily know or care how to do it well.

The rest of what you offer describes exigent circumstances, for sure.

Totally OT, btw.

One thing's for sure- pot smoking likely won't kill you, unless you're unlucky enough to be trapped in a burning warehouse full of the stuff.

I suspect that legalization will bring stronger joint state/ federal enforcement against non- licensed growing in excess of Colorado's personal limits. It's part of the deal of collecting revenue & preventing unwanted export to other states.

And there's this, with Leahy kinda picking up the ball where the Obama Admin left it-

The problem with prescription opiates is that a lot of people think they are somehow safer than street drugs and so they do 0 research on what pills they are about to ingest. Its easy to look up the LD50 on any opiate online and you can usually tell the dosage amount of a pill just by how it looks (for example morphine pills are different colors for each MG amount of dosage) but no one bothers to look. They just swallow some pills then go drinking which is a huge contributing factor to overdose deaths. There is also a counter overdose drug that you can take that will stop an opiate overdose from causing death or even the feelings that cause addiction but our buddies at the DEA have made getting that very difficult. It would be like if the fire department made getting a fire extinguisher hard.

If drug education was focused on science and teaching how these drugs interact with the human body (along with a rigorous Human Biology basics class) instead of the "Drugs are bad mmmkay" red ribbon week crap we have now then maybe some people would not just throw any old thing into their body and then proceed to mix it with other things that shouldn't be mixed. As mention by another poster tho people can barely be trusted with food consumption so maybe I am overstating how much education and information would help.

The biggest issue I have seen with MJ is when someone consumes more than they are used to and starts to have a "freak out", kinda like when someone drinks way more than they can handle but without the risk of death, hangover, throwing up, etc.

I suspect that legalization will bring stronger joint state/ federal enforcement against non- licensed growing in excess of Colorado's personal limits. It's part of the deal of collecting revenue & preventing unwanted export to other states.

As the industry grows it'll start demanding more and more government help to keep unlicensed competitors out of the market--and it'll have more and more influence due to taxes, lobbying, and so on.

In the not-too-distant future, marijuana use will be as normalized and open as that of alcohol. I'm afraid you're just going to have to get used to it. You can take heart in the fact that it isn't harmful in any way, and it's pretty damn hard to get even a light buzz from 2nd smoke in a non-enclosed environment.

I sincerely doubt you'll be able to smoke marijuana inside publicly accessible buildings (including restaurants) any time in the foreseeable future.

In the not-too-distant future, marijuana use will be as normalized and open as that of alcohol. I'm afraid you're just going to have to get used to it. You can take heart in the fact that it isn't harmful in any way, and it's pretty damn hard to get even a light buzz from 2nd smoke in a non-enclosed environment.

I sincerely doubt you'll be able to smoke marijuana inside publicly accessible buildings (including restaurants) any time in the foreseeable future.

Just like tobacco, unless you're talking about indoor rock concert venues. Here in Colorado, the places reeked of MJ smoke before A64, and I doubt that passage of it will lessen that. I'm not clear on the penalties at this point, but I doubt that anything more than a ticket is possible. I'm not even sure about that. Security generally pretends it isn't happening, so it's obviously not, right?

Now, let's look at another drawback, perception and reaction time while operating a motor vehicle. Are you willing to state that there is absolutely no difference from a completely stone cold sober and straight person operating a motor vehicle vs. one that is really buzzed on some top quality, high THC potency weed?

Much like other compounds this will vary from driver to driver. I know that back in the day, witnesses said I drove great at BACs that would kill inexperienced drinkers (and one friend would only ride with me if I had been drinking). Dope on the other hand, was terrifying to drive under, seriously scary. On the other hand I had a friend at that time, who drove better on dope than he did clean.. He would never even consider driving buzzed on alcohol as it didn't work for him.

Of course no one is going to allow drivers to be certified to drive at certain BACs or THC levels.

Also, it's hard to say what heroin overdoses happen from, frequently they happen when a person relapses after a period of sobriety after they lost some of their tolerance and by force of habit shoot up their old dose. Also, frequently multiple drugs are involved.

The lack of trust in street drugs is part of what keeps junkies alive. Over the counter drugs are safe because a doctor prescribed them... Derp! I know when I got beaten with bats I went to the ER and they gave me a shot of Ozy and then a scrip for Vicodin. The pharmacist said I'd want to take 2 of them now. I said I doubted that that was wise, having a BAC of 4-4.5 and having just done a shot of Oxy. If I would have just followed his instructions blindly I might be dead.

Now, let's look at another drawback, perception and reaction time while operating a motor vehicle. Are you willing to state that there is absolutely no difference from a completely stone cold sober and straight person operating a motor vehicle vs. one that is really buzzed on some top quality, high THC potency weed?

Much like other compounds this will vary from driver to driver. I know that back in the day, witnesses said I drove great at BACs that would kill inexperienced drinkers (and one friend would only ride with me if I had been drinking). Dope on the other hand, was terrifying to drive under, seriously scary. On the other hand I had a friend at that time, who drove better on dope than he did clean.. He would never even consider driving buzzed on alcohol as it didn't work for him.

Of course no one is going to allow drivers to be certified to drive at certain BACs or THC levels.

Stoned driver? Look for the guy going the speed limit in the right lane, checking his mirrors, using his turn signals, maintaining proper following distance, trying to get it just right because he knows he's fucked up but he can still function decently well. He's not temporarily brain dead at all. His consciousness is more altered than impaired.

Stoned driver? Look for the guy going the speed limit in the right lane, checking his mirrors, using his turn signals, maintaining proper following distance, trying to get it just right because he knows he's fucked up but he can still function decently well. He's not temporarily brain dead at all. His consciousness is more altered than impaired.

Drunks, otoh, don't necessarily act that way at all.

Hmm, for me it was more like "look at the dude waiting for the Stop sign to turn green. Eventually I get mad and run the damn thing but I look around first

And smoke, pretty much *any* smoke is carcinogenic. Does not matter if it's mesquite and you are getting it second hand off a side of ribs.

Stoned driver? Look for the guy going the speed limit in the right lane, checking his mirrors, using his turn signals, maintaining proper following distance, trying to get it just right because he knows he's fucked up but he can still function decently well. He's not temporarily brain dead at all. His consciousness is more altered than impaired.

Drunks, otoh, don't necessarily act that way at all.

Hmm, for me it was more like "look at the dude waiting for the Stop sign to turn green. Eventually I get mad and run the damn thing but I look around first

And smoke, pretty much *any* smoke is carcinogenic. Does not matter if it's mesquite and you are getting it second hand off a side of ribs.

That article seems to say that there may be mitigating factors (THC is preventative), it does not argue the fact that smoke (in general terms) is a carcinogen.

Clearly, there's a difference between "any smoke" and "smoke in general terms" vs cannabis smoke. If cannabis smoke, specifically, were carcinogenic, then cannabis smokers would have higher incidence of head, neck & lung cancer than non- smokers of cannabis, but they apparently don't, at least not in a demonstrable scientific way.

Now, let's look at another drawback, perception and reaction time while operating a motor vehicle. Are you willing to state that there is absolutely no difference from a completely stone cold sober and straight person operating a motor vehicle vs. one that is really buzzed on some top quality, high THC potency weed?

Much like other compounds this will vary from driver to driver. I know that back in the day, witnesses said I drove great at BACs that would kill inexperienced drinkers (and one friend would only ride with me if I had been drinking). Dope on the other hand, was terrifying to drive under, seriously scary. On the other hand I had a friend at that time, who drove better on dope than he did clean.. He would never even consider driving buzzed on alcohol as it didn't work for him.

Of course no one is going to allow drivers to be certified to drive at certain BACs or THC levels.

Stoned driver? Look for the guy going the speed limit in the right lane, checking his mirrors, using his turn signals, maintaining proper following distance, trying to get it just right because he knows he's fucked up but he can still function decently well. He's not temporarily brain dead at all. His consciousness is more altered than impaired.

Drunks, otoh, don't necessarily act that way at all.

Not a good way to enjoy your "buzz" is it? In fact, it's completely a waste of a good "buzz" to deal with something as complicated as operating a motor vehicle in accordance with the laws and rules of the road. Now, if you only have to go to the convenience store 1/2 a mile away, and only have one stop sign to negotiate in your quest for a bag of cheetos, then most likely, you'll be fine.

And for the stoners who say, I have so much tolerance that I can drive just as well as a straight person, I say you're not being entirely truthful.

You are under the influence of a fairly powerful drug, one that alters your perception. So, be a little more truthful.

I'll try to keep this as non-smart-assish as possible, but it has been known for a while now that there are only two proven negative health effects to smoking marijuana: stunted physical and mental development among youths, and increased symptoms of psychosis among psychotics. If you aren't still growing/developing, and you aren't psychotic, you have nothing to worry about.

And yes, it has been found to treat or prevent a number of cancers. This is known.

If you disagree, feel free to prove it.

Hey, at least you're a reefer advocate who is willing to admit there might be some drawbacks to it's use.

Now, let's look at another drawback, perception and reaction time while operating a motor vehicle. Are you willing to state that there is absolutely no difference from a completely stone cold sober and straight person operating a motor vehicle vs. one that is really buzzed on some top quality, high THC potency weed?

If it's a habitual user, like me, then yes, I would say it's within safe limits. I believe there was actually a test with a really adorable young woman that was done by a tv show that proved normal users can safely operate vehicles while stoned.

Is that a poor form of sarcasm? The conclusion of that video is the exact opposite of what you stated. Everybody in that video agreed that based on the results those people shouldn't be on the road after they got stoned enough.

There's people that consume alcohol in no small quantity and make it home, not only because they are experienced drinkers, but because the "path" to home is well defined and a rote exercise for them.

Cops who specialize in DUI stops will tell you, experienced alcoholics will routinely drive around with .08 BAC or better, and never exhibit the classic symptoms of a drunk driver. It's when they make a mistake that results in a stop that the cop gets a clue, then the DUI charge becomes preeminent.

If you gave the occasional and entirely sober "social drinker" three martinis, the way martinis are supposed to be made, full strength, consumed within an hour, and set them loose with a car and no direction home in a completely unfamiliar area, they would be pretty screwed. Or maybe not.

If you gave the occasional and entirely straight "social pot smoker" the best buds in the world just dripping with resin and three good hits from a bong and set them loose with a car and no direction home in a completely unfamiliar area, they would be pretty screwed. Or maybe not.

Is that a poor form of sarcasm? The conclusion of that video is the exact opposite of what you stated. Everybody in that video agreed that based on the results those people shouldn't be on the road after they got stoned enough.

i

Ah, I should have been more specific. The video clearly shows that experienced (and even inexperienced) smokers can safely drive while /moderately/ stoned. Obviously by the end when Addy has smoked a gram and a half (which is a ton to smoke in one day, much less at one time, she is unsafe. But even up to 7x the legal limit, she was fine. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dw1Havgo ... page#t=101

That article seems to say that there may be mitigating factors (THC is preventative), it does not argue the fact that smoke (in general terms) is a carcinogen.

Clearly, there's a difference between "any smoke" and "smoke in general terms" vs cannabis smoke. If cannabis smoke, specifically, were carcinogenic, then cannabis smokers would have higher incidence of head, neck & lung cancer than non- smokers of cannabis, but they apparently don't, at least not in a demonstrable scientific way.

Just trying to keep the facts straight.

There could easily be an issue of volume and statistical significance. It could simultaneously be true that woodfire smoke is a carcinogen and sitting by a campfire poses no measurable risk. The volume of smoke inhaled by the average cannabis smoker is probably way less than the average tobacco smoker. The volume may even be low enough that the relative danger is more comparable to the campfire than to the cigarette.

That article seems to say that there may be mitigating factors (THC is preventative), it does not argue the fact that smoke (in general terms) is a carcinogen.

Clearly, there's a difference between "any smoke" and "smoke in general terms" vs cannabis smoke. If cannabis smoke, specifically, were carcinogenic, then cannabis smokers would have higher incidence of head, neck & lung cancer than non- smokers of cannabis, but they apparently don't, at least not in a demonstrable scientific way.

Just trying to keep the facts straight.

There could easily be an issue of volume and statistical significance. It could simultaneously be true that woodfire smoke is a carcinogen and sitting by a campfire poses no measurable risk. The volume of smoke inhaled by the average cannabis smoker is probably way less than the average tobacco smoker. The volume may even be low enough that the relative danger is more comparable to the campfire than to the cigarette.

Yep. Silica is a carcinogen but I doubt many people are dying from cancer due to moon lit walks on the beach. "I'd be all romantic baby but I don't want to get the foot cancer."

There's people that consume alcohol in no small quantity and make it home, not only because they are experienced drinkers, but because the "path" to home is well defined and a rote exercise for them.

Cops who specialize in DUI stops will tell you, experienced alcoholics will routinely drive around with .08 BAC or better, and never exhibit the classic symptoms of a drunk driver. It's when they make a mistake that results in a stop that the cop gets a clue, then the DUI charge becomes preeminent.

Sometimes that mistake is "driving too well". Long ago I took up a policy of 3mph over the limit while drunk, having met WAY too many people who were pulled over because "You are driving perfectly, which means you are trying to hide something and are probably drunk!". So the problem is that alcohol makes some people drive too well.

That article seems to say that there may be mitigating factors (THC is preventative), it does not argue the fact that smoke (in general terms) is a carcinogen.

Clearly, there's a difference between "any smoke" and "smoke in general terms" vs cannabis smoke. If cannabis smoke, specifically, were carcinogenic, then cannabis smokers would have higher incidence of head, neck & lung cancer than non- smokers of cannabis, but they apparently don't, at least not in a demonstrable scientific way.

Just trying to keep the facts straight.

There could easily be an issue of volume and statistical significance. It could simultaneously be true that woodfire smoke is a carcinogen and sitting by a campfire poses no measurable risk. The volume of smoke inhaled by the average cannabis smoker is probably way less than the average tobacco smoker. The volume may even be low enough that the relative danger is more comparable to the campfire than to the cigarette.

Dunno about the statistical significance bit, but, yeh, it's important to reference reality when discussing carcinogenic effects. Apparently, even long term heavy pot smokers have no demonstrably greater risk of cancer than non-smokers. That's the reality.

Some will look at the title of this article and think that I'm baiting you into reading why you're actually for cannabis regulation because you're really a decent human being. And while you'd be right, the truth is that I want this to be a real issue for you because I'm not being facetious. You're not a stiflingly overprotective mom if you don't want your kids taking drugs, legal or not. You're not a narc for wanting to keep money out of the black market. You're not a communist for being uneasy about the potential for "Big Marijuana" to join the bankroll of the inebriation lobby. But there are a slew of bellowing ignorant statements that you make when you support cannabis prohibition: That you don't care about injustice; That you mindlessly repeat propaganda so easily debunked it belies the shallowness of either your intelligence or your integrity; That you are so averse to admitting that you were wrong about something regardless of how bigoted, short-sighted, and stupid it makes you look, you don't even care what your stubbornness is saying about you.

...

And for anyone still on the fence about the whole carcinogenic issue, please check out the wealth of studies he links to. There's a ton of great information there. The guy did his homework.

Some will look at the title of this article and think that I'm baiting you into reading why you're actually for cannabis regulation because you're really a decent human being. And while you'd be right, the truth is that I want this to be a real issue for you because I'm not being facetious. You're not a stiflingly overprotective mom if you don't want your kids taking drugs, legal or not. You're not a narc for wanting to keep money out of the black market. You're not a communist for being uneasy about the potential for "Big Marijuana" to join the bankroll of the inebriation lobby. But there are a slew of bellowing ignorant statements that you make when you support cannabis prohibition: That you don't care about injustice; That you mindlessly repeat propaganda so easily debunked it belies the shallowness of either your intelligence or your integrity; That you are so averse to admitting that you were wrong about something regardless of how bigoted, short-sighted, and stupid it makes you look, you don't even care what your stubbornness is saying about you.

...

And for anyone still on the fence about the whole carcinogenic issue, please check out the wealth of studies he links to. There's a ton of great information there. The guy did his homework.

In case I forgot to mention: Thanks for starting this thread and keeping it updated.